Coping With Work-Nonwork Stressors Over Time: A Person-Centered, Multistudy Integration of Coping Breadth and Depth

• 成果类型: Article
• 署名作者: Kleshinski, Catherine E.; Wilson, Kelly Schwind; Stevenson-Street, Julia M.; Rosokha, Lindsay Mechem
• 署名单位: Indiana University System; Indiana University Bloomington; IU Kelley School of Business; Purdue University System; Purdue University; University of Missouri System; University of Missouri Columbia
• 刊物名称: JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
• ISSN/ISSBN: 0021-9010
• DOI: 10.1037/apl0001207
• 发表日期: 2024
• 页码: 1765-1793
• 关键词: coping; work-nonwork interface; LATENT PROFILE ANALYSIS; latent transition analysis; social support

摘要

Coping is a dynamic response to stressors that employees encounter in their work and nonwork roles. Scholars have argued that it is not just whether employees cope with work-nonwork stressors-but how they cope-that matters. Indeed, prior research assumes that adaptive coping strategies-planning, prioritizing, positive reframing, seeking emotional and instrumental support-are universally beneficial, suggesting that sustaining high levels of these strategies is ideal. By returning to the roots of coping theory, we adopt a person-centered, dynamic approach using latent profile analysis and latent transition analysis across three multiwave studies (N = 1,370) to consider whether employees combine coping strategies and how remaining in or shifting between such combinations also matters. In a pilot study (N = 361), we explored profiles and their transitions during a time frame punctuated with macrolevel transitions that amplified employees' work-nonwork stressors (i.e., COVID-19), which revealed three profiles at Time 1 (comprehensive copers, emotion-focused copers, and individualistic copers) and a fourth profile at Time 2 (surviving copers). In Study 1 (N = 648), across all three time points, we replicated three profiles and found evidence for constrained copers instead of emotion-focused copers. In Study 2 (N = 361), across both time points, we replicated all four profiles from Study 1 and tested hypotheses regarding the profiles, their transition patterns, and implications of such patterns for work, well-being, and social functioning outcomes. Altogether, our work suggests that maintaining high-coping depth or increasing depth is generally beneficial, whereas maintaining or increasing coping breadth is generally harmful.